Articles About Practice Management

As financial advisors, we never want to see a client run out of money, especially “on our watch” as the advisor. Which makes it especially challenging to deal with clients who appear to be spending “too much” and may be on an unsustainable spending trajectory… especially if you’ve done a comprehensive financial plan for them, and know that their current spending pattern is unsustainable. Even if it’s sometimes difficult medicine to give them – telling them that their spending and lifestyle need to change – it’s an essential value of good financial planning to deliver the sometimes-difficult message when it’s necessary to do so. Except, in some cases, it turns out that the problem isn’t actually that the client has a spending problem at all… instead, the real problem is simply that the client didn’t yet trust us enough to tell us about all their assets in the first place.

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we explore situations where clients who have a “spending problem” actually don’t have a spending problem… they have a trust problem that leads them to be unwilling to share information about all of their assets with the advisor. A situation that may occur more and more frequently in the future, as the advisory industry continues to converge on the AUM model… and clients feel increasingly pressured to consolidate all their assets with their current advisor once the advisor “finds out” there are other assets he/she doesn’t already manage!

Learning that a client has been “hiding” assets can come as a shock for many advisors. It’s the situation where you thought you were being a good holistic financial planner, and giving them guidance about unsustainable spending, and then abruptly find out the client is terminating the relationship and consolidating all of their assets with another advisor. Which leads to three surprising and related realizations: (1) they actually had another advisor we didn’t know about, (2) they actually had other assets we didn’t know about, and (3) they weren’t actually overspending in the first place. We only thought they were overspending because they didn’t want to tell us about all of their assets for fear of being solicited about them!

And the reality is, as more and more of the advisory industry shifts to the AUM model and packages together financial planning and investment management, this problem is going to get a lot worse. When we look at the financial advisory market as a whole, about one-third of the 115 million US households are at least mass affluent, only about one-half of those have more than $100k that could be managed by a financial advisor (i.e., outside of a retirement plan), and only about one-third of those are actually delegators who are looking to hire an advisor. Which means, when you do the math, there may only be about 7 to 8 million households to divvy up among 300,000 financial advisors, resulting in about 21 clients per advisor (of which only 5 are millionaires!). Ironically, this means that if all clients did consolidate all of their assets with one advisor, many advisors would go out of business (or at least be compelled to pursue other advisor business models that can serve other types of non-AUM clientele!)!

Fortunately, in practice clients tend to split assets across multiple advisors (which keeps more advisors employed and engaged!), but clients don’t necessarily tell us, because they don’t want to be solicited to consolidate assets… which can result in a dysfunctional financial planning relationship in the process! For me, this led to the realization of the importance of being even more focused on leading with financial planning first, and to be less aggressive about insisting we “have to” be holistic and do “everything” for clients all at once. Because if clients can’t trust you to do the financial planning work first and build that relationship over time, then they may never have enough trust to consolidate their assets regardless. But if you can lead with financial planning and build that trust, then you can end up eventually winning all of their business in the long run anyway. Without clients feeling so pressured that they keep some of their assets a secret in a way that further undermines the planning relationship you’re trying to build.

The bottom line, though, is just to acknowledge that if you have a client who has a “spending problem” and is heavily overspending and just keeps ignoring your advice, it is possible they really have a spending problem, but it is also possible that they have a different problem – one where they don’t actually trust you and feel as comfortable with you as you may have thought, leading them to hide assets from you so that you don’t solicit them to consolidate. And as the industry continues to converge on the AUM model for providing both financial planning and investment management services, we’ll likely continue to see more and more clients with “spending problems” that might not actually be!

One of the virtues of working in a broker-dealer or especially a wirehouse environment is that the firm makes a number of decisions for you as the advisor, greatly expediting the process of being able to quickly launch your business and focus on working with your clients. The bad news is that in at least some cases, it’s much less expensive to simply set up your own advisory firm instead – especially if your focus is on charging AUM or other financial planning fees, such that there’s no need to have a broker-dealer affiliation in the first place. The caveat, however, is that breaking away to become an independent RIA isn’t “just” about the economics of working under a broker-dealer (or as a dual-registered advisor with the corporate RIA) versus your own RIA; it’s also about going through the actual steps to actually create and launch your own RIA, because being independent truly means it’s your responsibility to handle the setup process and make all the technology, platform, and other vendor decisions! Which for many advisors, is a process that can feel downright overwhelming.

But the reality is that many financial advisors have successfully made the transition, and it isn’t necessary to reinvent the wheel with each breakaway to independence. In this guest post, Aaron Hattenbach of Rapport Financial, an RIA that he founded when successfully breaking away from Merrill Lynch in late 2016 (while retaining 100% of his clients), shares his own experience in breaking away from a wirehouse early in his career to go independent, including a detailed, step-by-step overview of his process to successfully launching his RIA.

Ultimately, the process does take a lot of work, from creating the legal RIA entity and going through the compliance registration process, to establishing your business bank and credit card accounts and getting a logo and business cards, setting up your initial technology platform (from a web domain and email provider, to your CRM and portfolio performance reporting tools), to choosing your initial vendors from your RIA custodian, and your office space! Unfortunately, the pressure to get launched quickly – especially when changing firms for a fast-launch RIA – means that a few mistakes may be inevitable, and Aaron does note the areas where, in retrospect, he could have better avoided unnecessary expenses, kept start-up costs lower, and curated better technology and service providers for his firm. But for any advisors who are serious about breaking away and forming their own independent RIA, Aaron’s overview should provide much food for thought on your own breakaway, as well as some things you may want to consider in order to navigate it successfully!

Summer internship programs are a popular way for advisory firms – as with most businesses – to leverage student talent to tackle projects, get support on ongoing business tasks, and even to build a pipeline of talented candidates that the firm can hire for future openings. The caveat, though, is that implementing a financial planning internship program can be a challenge, especially in trying to get it off the ground for the first time. From finding good candidates and creating a proper internship job description, to making the hire and getting the intern up to speed in your firm quickly, there is simply a lot to learn and do, with only a short amount of time to do it all given that a summer internship only lasts a few months. The unfortunate end result is that many financial planners avoid internships altogether, even though they could be great opportunities for students, firms, and the profession!

But the reality is that implementing a financial planning internship program does not need to be an overwhelming task, and it really is possible to get productive value out of a financial planning intern in just a few short months. In this guest post, Jon Yankee of FJY Financial, which has run a successful internship program with 21 summer associates over the past 11 years, shares how they implemented their financial planning (summer) internship program with college students, from the early stages of finding qualified candidates, to the process of (rapidly) onboarding the intern so they have time to contribute productively to the firm, all the way through the late stages of the exit interview to get feedback from interns and discover ways that the program can be improved for future years.

The end result of their financial planning internship program has not just been a way to give back to the profession, students, and the CFP Board Registered Programs training the financial planners of the future, but also a direct benefit to the team members at the firm, a talented pool of vetted candidates from which the firm has hired, and an experience working with young financial planners who have enhanced client deliverables for the firm. Of course, it is always a challenge trying to get an intern up to speed in a short amount of time and acclimated to the culture of a new firm, but with a diligently implemented internship program, financial planners really can launch a successful internship program!

While the average financial advisor with 10+ years of experience makes nearly triple the median US household income, the caveat to becoming a financial advisor is that most don’t survive their first few years, and the pressure of getting all your own clients (and persuading them to actually pay you for advice!).

In this guest post, first-year financial planner Shawn Tydlaska shares his own survival tips for having gotten through his first year, on track for more than $100,000 of recurring revenue(!), which he achieved in large part by heavily reinvesting in himself throughout the first year. Of course, reinvesting means that Shawn spent more than many advisors do in trying to start their advisory firms on a low budget… yet at the same time, by focusing on reinvesting his income as it came in, he was able to do so while limiting his actual out-of-pocket costs.

Shawn also shares exactly what kinds of conferences and courses he put himself through to accelerate his growth, how he structured his marketing (and what materials he takes into a typical prospect meeting today), what he tracks in his business, how he leverages his study group, and more!

So whether you’ve been thinking about going out on your own as an independent advisor but aren’t certain what to do, or you’re already in your first few year(s) and looking for fresh ideas about how to better focus, or are an experienced advisor and just want some fresh perspective, I hope you find today’s guest post to be helpful!

The big news this week was the “record-breaking” drop (at least in absolute point decline) in the stock market on Monday, the incredible blow-out of the VIX, and the challenge that inevitable comes when market volatility rises: the need to check in with clients, talk them through what’s happening in the markets, evaluate whether it’s necessary to make any portfolio changes, and try to talk them off a ledge if they’re really freaking out. But the reality is that being able to proactive communicate with clients, and have effective client meetings, during times of market volatility, is actually heavily impacted by how you construct your client portfolios in the first place, and the extent to which you customize those portfolios for each client.

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we examine the problem with financial advisors customizing every client portfolio, particularly once we experience volatile markets, and how financial advisors (and asset managers) should look at “customization” going forward!

In a world where advisors are trying to become less product-centric and add more value to clients, there does appear to be a nascent trend of advisors trying to create more customized portfolios for clients. Though this idea isn’t exactly new (it has occurred for decades in the form of selecting stocks and mutual funds for clients and adapting at every client review meeting), the rise of rebalancing software (or “model management” software tools more broadly), has made it easier to systematize the process of customizing individual client portfolios, while still being able to monitor and manage them centrally.

But I think this week’s market volatility is actually a really good example of the problem that arises with trying to create drastically customized and different portfolios for every client: if every client has their own “customized” portfolio, then it is really hard to keep track of all of your different clients and their portfolios. And so, instead of being able to easily send out broadly applicable communication to your client base, you’ll end up spending an hour to prep for every meeting and write every personalized client email during volatile market times. Simply put, customizing every client portfolio isn’t scalable for the client relationship itself (regardless of the scalable back-office technology to support it).

The challenges of the trend towards customization is notable with respect to asset managers as well. Because asset managers are – justifiably, I think – afraid of their future in a world where advisors are less product-centric, and looking to retool their own businesses. And the discussion I’m hearing more and more from those asset managers is “if advisors don’t want to use standard mutual fund products anymore, then we have to pivot and go the other direction. From products to customization instead!” But here’s the problem: when we look at the advisory firms adopting ETFs and eliminating mutual fund products, they’re not really customizing that much anyway. Even advisory firms that have dropped mutual funds and are building model ETF portfolios, not customized ETF portfolio (allowing them to keep charging their 1% fee while disintermediating the cost of the mutual fund manager, and effectively turning themselves into portfolio managers). So the real shift is that the client buys the investment “product” from the advisor and the advisor’s firm, not from the mutual fund company or other asset managers. The opposite of product isn’t customization. The opposite of product is advisor. When our value proposition is based on what we do, we don’t want to sell a third-party product, of any type. We want to sell ourselves!

So where does all of this leave us? From the advisor’s perspective, and particularly for those of you who are now struggling to figure out how to assess the damage of this week’s market volatility because all of your clients have “customized” portfolios… let this be a call-to-action for you of how not scalable you’re making the client relationship management needs of your business. There are a lot of firms that are growing just fine without customizing every single portfolio differently for every client. There may be times when some customization is still needed, but it is better to customize from a planning perspective (e.g., for tax purposes) rather than an investment perspective.

And for Asset Managers, particularly mutual fund managers, trying to figure out how to reach advisors and stay relevant… I can only caution you that the push towards making more customized solutions is not likely to work out well for you. If you want to stay relevant as financial advisors transition from salespeople to actual advisors, figure out how to make better products that cost less and are truly best in class at what they do. Because as advisors, if you can pass our screens and get to the top of the list, you get all of our money in that fund or category. And if you can’t, you’re never going to get in the door in the first place anymore.

The bottom line, though, is just to recognize that customizing portfolios for every client is simply not a scalable model, not because of technology limitations but in light of the stress and communication challenges that come with trying to help our clients through volatile markets. Which means this may be a great opportunity to begin the process of standardizing your investment process (if you haven’t already) so that you can actually be more proactive with clients, when you’re not spending all that time re-analyzing every client’s portfolio one at a time!

While Turnkey Asset Management Platform (TAMP) solutions were first launched in the 1980s, they have grown dramatically in the past decade… accentuating a rising trend of financial advisors outsourcing their investment management, which a recent Cerulli study found is now being done by the majority (54%) of CFP professionals. And as advisors increasingly focus on giving financial planning advice (and not just providing insurance or investment solutions), this trend seems likely to only continue further, as more and more CFP professionals adopt some combination of TAMPs and technology tools to minimize the time they spend implementing portfolio management for their clients. In other words, notwithstanding their recent growth, TAMPs and the world of outsourced investment management is about to get a whole lot bigger than it is even today!

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we examine what a TAMP (turnkey asset management platform) is, why TAMPs and outsourced investment management are the future for most financial advisors, and how financial planners of the future will likely seek out and adopt TAMPs in a different manner than the popular solutions of the past!

For those who aren’t familiar, TAMPs originated nearly 30 years ago, with early leaders like PMC, AssetMark, Lockwood, Brinker Capital, and SEI. The idea of the TAMP was that they would handle the process of actually managinga portfolio – making it as “turnkey” as possible – from selecting the initial stocks or mutual funds (or these days, ETFs) to then monitoring the portfolio and making investment changes (as necessary) on an ongoing basis. As a result, the TAMP structure made the investment management process much easier for advisors, allowing advisors to have consistently managed portfolios, and refocus their efforts that would have gone towards managing investments towards better servicing clients (or finding new ones).

Outsourced investment management was first popular in the broker-dealer environment, structured around a commission trail arrangement, but in the RIA community, it’s more common to use a “sub-advisor” TAMP relationship, where the clientactually contracts directly with the RIA using their investment management agreement – which may acknowledge the TAMP as a sub-advisor – and then the RIA in turn contracts with the TAMP as a sub-advisor to manage their client accounts (with a Limited Power Of Attorney [LPOA] Authorization to trade in the client’s account through the custodial platform). This shift towards sub-advisor TAMPs in recent years is a key distinction, as the client is first and foremost a client of the advisor, and it’s the advisor who actually decides whether to keep or fire the TAMP as their sub-advisor. Which also means that the RIA can actually claim the AUM they outsource to the TAMP as their own regulatory AUM, because the RIA is the one responsible for the primary “management” (even if that management is choosing a third-party asset manager).

Accordingly, in recent years, a new kind of TAMP adopter has emerged – the holistic financial planner. While in the past TAMPs were primarily the domain of asset-gatherers (who freed up their time to get more clients into the TAMP), for those who are paid heavily or primarily for their financial planning services (rather than being primarily an “investment advisor” for their clients) a TAMP can make a lot of sense as a means to stay involved in the investment process, but not have to be that hands-on with the portfolio (or feel compelled to hire a CFA to run the portfolios). As a result, we’ve seen the rise of some “simpler” TAMPs that focus on ETF or DFA-oriented mostly-passive portfolios, relying on their service and technology as a differentiator, rather than their investment results. Thus, while TAMPs have historically charged as much as 75 basis points or even a full 1% for their services, the next generation of more passively-oriented TAMPs are coming in at 50 basis points, 40 basis points, or some even at 30 basis points for larger RIAs (depending on both the size of the advisory firm, and also how much back office and other support the TAMP actually commits to provide).

Yet the addition of a new layer of TAMP costs raises another important question: who should pay for it? Or put another way, how should advisors set their fees around the TAMP? Ultimately, there’s not necessarily a “right” or “wrong” answer here, because the truth is that it depends on how the advisory firm was positioned with its clients in the first place. If the advisor’s value to clients was helping them to find a good investment solution, the advisor may be able to still justify his/her fee for selection, due diligence, and monitoring, and the client would pay the TAMP fee for what the TAMP does. But if the advisor’s value to clients was “managing their money”, and then the advisor outsources it, it’s a little more awkward, as arguably now that should be advisor’s cost, not the client’s, because the client is already paying the advisor to do it. At the same time, it’s important to remember that according to the latest benchmarking data on advisory fees, the typical advisor is charging 1% on a portfolio up to $1M in addition to the underlying costs that average 65 to 85 basis points (with higher costs for smaller portfolios). Which means advisors who charge 1% for the first $1 million dollars, and use a TAMP that charges less than 50 basis points and has low-cost ETFs inside, will have total costs that are still below the median all-in cost for advisors today!

The bottom line, though, is just to recognize that as financial advisors increasingly focus on financial planning, and investment management literally becomes less central (though not necessarily irrelevant) to our value proposition with clients, so too does investment management become less central to what we do in our businesses (and where we spend time).Which is leading to an ongoing rise in the use of TAMPs and outsourcing investment portfolios, as the majority of CFP professionals are now outsourcing portfolio management. And the better we get at delivering financial planning value, the more that trend will likely continue!

With an ever-growing wave of mergers and acquisitions, and industry consolidation, amongst both broker-dealers and RIAs, there is an increasingly common view that the solo financial advisor is “doomed” in the coming years. Whether due to the burdens of managing the firm, meeting the rising volume of fiduciary compliance obligations, handling increasingly complex investment or insurance solutions, or just doing all the financial planning work… the presumption is that all together it will simply become “unmanageable” – or at least impossible to do in a cost-effective manner – for the typical solo financial advisor in the future. Thus requiring solo advisors to either be acquired, or at least be “tucked in” to larger firms, in order to access their resources and have better economies of scale. Yet the reality is that “the death of the solo financial advisor” has been forecasted for nearly two decades now, and in the meantime solo financial advisors have actually become more profitable than ever!

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we take a deeper dive into the current state of the solo advisor, why it’s actually becoming easier to be a successful independent solo financial advisor, and why the coming decade is more likely to be the GOLDEN AGE of solo financial advisors than the death of them!

As a starting point, it is helpful to pause and reflect on the current state of solo financial advisors as they exist today, nearly 20 years after Mark Hurley famously issued his 1999 report forecasting the death of the solo advisor. Because the current industry benchmarking studies reveal some striking trends, including that the best solo financial advisors take home as much hard-dollar cash compensation as the typical partner in a billion dollar advisory firm! In fact, the top solo advisors are keeping in their pocket as much as 70 to nearly 90 cents of every dollar of revenue that they generate, after accounting for all expenses (technology, office space, staff, etc.). In hard dollar terms, the typical standout solo advisor is netting almost $600,000 per year in take-home profits, on $700,000 to $800,000 of total revenue. So to put it mildly, solo advisory firms are not exactly struggling and dying in today’s marketplace! And while these figures are based on about the top 25% of solo firms – so clearly not all solo advisors are doing this well – even the average solo advisor can do very well on much lower levels of revenue with the potential for a 60% to 80% profit margin!

Accordingly, even if costs rise substantially (say, another 10% on overhead), solo advisors would still have ample profit margins to absorb the impact, and top solo advisors could still be taking home nearly half a million dollars a year in take-home pay. Even an advisor generating “just” $250,0000 in gross revenue and running a 60% profit margin would still be taking home $150,000, which is still almost 3 times the median household income in the U.S. Simply put, there’s a lot of room to succeed as a solo advisor, even if costs rise.

Furthermore, it’s really not even clear if we should expect costs to rise for solo advisors in the future, as the reality is that the cost of what it takes to operate an advisory firm today compared to 20 years ago has been reduced tremendously, due to technology. Tools that make it more efficient to be a solo financial advisor – scheduling software, rebalancing software, tax updates built into powerful planning software rather than proprietary spreadsheets, account aggregation tools that automatically update financial plans, etc. – have all reduced the costs of being a solo financial advisor, in terms of both time and money. And while 20 to 30 years ago the “best” technology was at the wirehouse firms that had the resources to develop them, today almost all of the best solutions are provided by independent technology firms, and accessible for the average solo financial advisor (because the independent technology provider can achieve economies of scale, which transfers down to the individual advisor using the software!).

With all this being said, I don’t want to be insensitive to the plight of many of today’s solo financial advisors today who are not running 60% (or 80%-plus) profit margins, and are not taking home half a million dollars or more in compensation from their firms. For many solo advisory firms, there is often a complaint with growth that “the business isn’t scaling”, which is typically code for “this isn’t getting any easier as my firm gets bigger, so when are all of these efficiencies coming along?” But the real struggles for solo advisory firms, particularly once they cross about 50 clients, aren’t actually the result of being too small to survive, but instead are a result of not having enough focus. Because the reality is that it is time intensive and hard to scale if each client you serve is different and you don’t have a clear target market where you can create a consistent solution. But that means the key to success isn’t more size and staff and growth… it’s finding better focus. Otherwise, growing bigger just makes the problem worse, because you add even more inefficient clients and then throw staff and money at the problem, which doesn’t actually make it more efficient, and just makes you miserable because now you have to manage more and more staff on top of your inefficient business!

However, it’s important to recognize that there is one real challenge that solo advisory firms do face in the future: the marketing challenge of getting new clients, and differentiating yourself, given the coming (and even current) landscape of advisory firms. Because while there was a time where just being a comprehensive financial planner was a sufficient differentiator, but that is no longer the case. Solo advisors have to compete with over 80,000 other CFP certificants now, and every major broker-dealer has been making a big push into financial planning for years. And while it is true that solo financial advisors can often still go deeper than those firms, and have more relevant expertise, and be more specialized…. unfortunately, few solo advisors are. Many are still just generalist financial planners. And there is a problem with trying to outmarket a firm that’s 100 or a 1,000 times your size, or even larger, when all you do is the same generalist financial planning advice that they do. Which means focusing and specializing into a niche helps both your client service efficiency and your marketing!

The bottom line, though, is just to recognize that not only is the solo financial advisor not dying… and I’d argue that there’s never been a better time to become a solo advisor, thanks to the rise of the internet and all this amazing technology that allows us to be solo advisors and leverage that technology at a fraction of the cost of traditional staff members. However, the fact that you can be more efficient than ever as a solo won’t help in the future if you can’t differentiate yourself. But when you get all that right, as the benchmarking studies have shown already, solo financial advisors can make an incredible income (sometimes not even working full time!)! Which means being a solo financial advisor can still be amazing… at least, once you have focus!

As we enter the new year, many advisors will be thinking about ways they can improve their business in 2018. Yet one of the more interesting trends that I have been seeing lately is the rise of advisory firms where the biggest challenge is not the success and growth of the business… but that the advisory firm owners themselves are unhappy, or downright miserable. This seems to particularly occur within the RIA community, and especially amongst those firms managing between approximately $100 million and $300 million of AUM… a subcategory of firms I call “accidental business owners”. Because the source of their stress is that they may have built successful and profitable businesses – and now find themselves responsible for managing it – despite the fact that they never actually intended to build a firm that they would have to spend so much time managing in the first place!

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we discuss what is causing so many advisory firms to become accidental business owners, why they occur in the first place, the problem with being an accidental business owner, and what financial advisors can do if they find themselves in this situation to become happier (and regain control of their lives).

To understand the phenomenon of the accidental business owner, it’s important to first point out that the word “business owner” is being used in a very specific way. We often talk about advisory firms as being “businesses”, but there’s a distinction between true “businesses”, and advisory firm practices. The difference is that a practice is built around an individual advisor. The practice is you, and while you may have a staff member or two, it’s primarily about the services you provide to clients. By contrast, an advisory firm business – a true business – goes beyond just you as the founder advisor. There are other advisors, who manage clients, and who are responsible for helping to bring in new revenue. Historically, almost all financial advisors were salespeople, and most salespeople simply have practices – as evidenced by the fact that if the advisor-salesperson did not go out and selling new insurance or investment products, income dropped precipitously and the business would die. But with the rise of the AUM model, and phenomenally high retention rates amongst advisory firms, advisors began being able to accrue clients over time and actually build large and scalable businesses – businesses that truly needed to hire other advisors to come in and manage relationships – often even without trying to do so. The clients just accrued until the point that it was a business. Thus, they became “accidental” business owners.

But the fundamental problem that crops up for those financial advisors who become accidental business owners is that the job of running an advisory business is different than the job of being a successful advisory practice. A successful practice as a financial advisor is all about your ability to effectively service your own clients. By contrast, running a successful advisory business requires you to be in the role of teaching and training other financial advisors to be good at business development, financial planning, servicing clients, and managing relationships (in addition to managing the firm, hiring staff, making technology decisions, and actually being a leader of the firm). Which means if the primary reason you started your firm in the first place was because you like to be a financial advisor, and give people advice, and help them, and have those client relationships… then being an advisory firm business owner is going to be pretty miserable, because you don’t get to do any of that stuff anymore. Which ultimately tends to occur as firms grow to around $100 to $300 million in AUM, because this is the point at which an advisor (or a small team of 2-3 advisors) truly crosses the threshold where they are at capacity and have to add more advisors and other employees and start to scale their practice up to a business.

So with all this being said, if you do find yourself in the position of being one of those unhappy accidental business owners, what should you do about it? The key is to acknowledge that is that there is effectively a fork in the road. The path on the left is to embrace your new role as a business owner. You may not have set out to do it, but here you are, and this is your opportunity to grow, to learn something new, and to do this well. You may recognize that you need help, but that’s OK. If you’re a more visionary type, and you can see what needs to be built, but you’re really not the good manager to build and integrate it all together, then make the reinvestment to hire a Chief Operating Officer to be your right hand for implementation.

On the other hand, the path to the right is to go back to being a successful solo advisory practice again. This is by far the more painful path for most of us. Because it basically means downsizing the firm and the number of clients you serve, which to many can feel like “failure”. Except it turns out that it may be the single fastest step to actually make you happy again in your business. Because, due to the 80/20 rule, many or even most advisors can maintain their current take-home pay by scaling back to (just) their top 20% of clients while freeing up additional expenses and a lot of time and effort.

But the bottom line is that as you get started here in the new year, take a good long look at what you’ve built. Is it a practice, or a business? And more importantly, what do you want it to be. Do you really want to build a business, and make the reinvestments – financial, time, effort, and learning new skills – that it takes to lead the business? Or do you really just want to run a successful practice, make good money, and regain control of your time? Either path is truly okay, but you have to decide what you want to build towards. And if you’ve found yourself accidentally going down the “wrong” path – you’re an accidental business owner that doesn’t really want to be anymore – recognize that going back to a lifestyle practice is an acceptable answer, and it may be the path that truly leads to greater happiness!

As financial planning firms, we offer a valuable service to consumers who are willing and able to pay for our services. Which is what makes the business of financial advice so valuable, and why the average income of a CFP professional is nearly double the median household income in the US. The unfortunate caveat, though, is that financial planning services still are not affordable to a large segment of consumers. Including, alas, the employees of most advisory firms, which means the very people who work there and are expected to advocate for the value of their firm’s services and the benefits of financial planning have never actually experienced it themselves!

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we discuss the issues to consider for advisory firms that want to remedy this gap offering financial planning as an employee benefit to the employees of their own firm… including considerations such whether to provide such services internally or externally, whether to let employees choose their own advisor, the tax consequences to consider, and why providing financial planning to employees can actually provide an Return On Investment as employees gain better perspective on how to improve the firm’s client experience (by actually experiencing financial planning themselves!).

The first question you have to evaluate when considering how to offer financial planning as an employee benefit is whether you’re going to provide the financial planning services internally or externally. Offering financial planning “internally” means the firm’s advisors actually do the financial planning for its employees. Firms may put one associate advisor in charge of all internal planning, or perhaps provide several advisors that employees can go to (since it may be awkward to get financial planning from your direct supervisor). Which raises a real issue with trying to do financial planning internally for employees: there are many conflicts of interest that can arise. For instance, what if an employee’s financial plan includes a desire to leave the firm and go into another field? Or what if employees want to talk through the considerations of saving up enough money to buy out the founder in a firm (but don’t want to announce their intentions to their co-workers yet)? These issues may be awkward to discuss internally.

As a result, most advisory firms I’ve seen that offer financial planning as an employee benefit offer it externally. The most straightforward approach is simply to engage in a reciprocal agreement with another similar-sized advisory firm – where each provides services to the other firm’s employees. In this scenario, you will likely have a cost to actually pay the other advisory firm for their services as well, but if the firms are similar in size, presumably each firm will have roughly the same costs (and income) paid to each other. The caveat even with this approach, though, is that the firm may not actually have the expertise to help your employees, nor will you necessarily have the expertise to help theirs. Are you really prepared to develop for them a 3-year roadmap to repaying debt, navigating debt consolidation services, and repairing their credit scores, if that’s what your employee’s planning needs are?

Which leads to a third option for financial planning as an employee benefit: just give employees a budget for financial planning, and let them go and find their own advisor. And the benefit of this approach is that employees can seek out their own advisors through organizations like the Garrett Planning Network or XY Planning Network, which include financial advisors whose expertise is in the areas that typically-younger “rank-and-file” employees actually need, while also having pricing that is less expensive than larger independent RIAs (and therefore more affordable to the advisory firm offering the employee benefit).

Beyond the enhancements in employee well-being that can come from having access to financial planning services (e.g., reduced stress, less absenteeism, better utilization of employee benefits, and lower employee turnover), one of the biggest indirect benefits of using an external firm is that employees can actually experience what it’s like to seek out and be a financial planning client. Going through the process of finding an advisor, being onboarded, and then working with that advisor on an ongoing basis, gives employees perspective not only on the value of financial planning, but may also generate ideas about how to provide services better for the firm’s own clients. Of course, in order to avoid unintended negative feelings, it is important that employees understand the tax consequences of receiving financial planning as an employee benefit. Because financial planning is not a tax-qualified employee benefit perk, any money actually paid to an external firm (or possibly the market value of the services received internally), must be reported as W-2 income and becomes taxable to the employee.

The bottom line, though, is simply to recognize that financial planning services can be an excellent benefit to provide to employees, and particularly when employees get to seek out an external advisor and gain valuable insight into how your own firm can better service clients!

Financial advisors looking to improve their businesses have a wide range of “Best Practices” research to tap for new ideas, from industry benchmarking studies to specialized white papers. And of course, this Nerd’s Eye View blog. For those seeking methods to run their advisory business more efficiently and profitably, there are a lot of relatively simple tactics to try.

In fact, as highlighted in this guest post from Stephanie Bogan and Matthew Jarvis, arguably the greatest challenge in improving a financial advisor’s business is not actually figuring out the Best Practices methods at all… and instead is almost entirely about changing the mindset of the advisory firm owner. Because most business improvements to an advisory firm are fairly straightforward – from standardizing service offerings, to eliminating fee schedule exceptions. The blocking point is in our heads. Literally.

Because as Bogan and Jarvis discuss, the real reason that most advisors struggle to take their businesses to the next level is the limiting beliefs that we impose on ourselves as financial advisors and business owners. The idea that certain aspects of the business “must” be done a certain way, or the business will fail. When in reality, it’s simply that we don’t want to go through the awkwardness of change and the discomfort of feeling threatened and worried that a client might push back… even though at worst, making changes will probably just threaten to cause a few clients to leave (and usually it’s those clients who weren’t even the best fit in the first place!).

In other words, the key to financial advisor success isn’t really about implementing the right methods – the business tactics and best practices – but more about having the right mindset that makes it easier to implement those methods in the first place. Because once as advisors we have clarity and focus in the business, a confidence in our own worth and the value we provide, a focus on leveraging our time and relationships, and an abundance mentality that the money and business success will come by doing the right things… it becomes remarkably easy to make the changes necessary for that success to actually happen!